2025 (9) TMI 1594 - HC - GST

GST returns can be amended to fix clerical GSTIN errors to prevent double taxation; authorities must allow rectification promptly

HC allowed rectification of clerical/arithmetic errors in GST returns, holding such errors are covered as assessment and may be corrected when apparent on ... Rectification of mistake - bonafide clerical or arithmetical mistakes crept in the return - error apparent on the face of record - double jeopardy - HELD THAT:- Being the gamut of rectifying the mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, under the scheme of the GST statutes the returns are self-assessed and thereby it can be comprehended within the meaning of “assessment”. The figures and facts due to human error reflected in such returns and discovered subsequently could be rectified as “clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission”. There can be no two opinions in mind, but the firm view is that clerical or arithmetical mistakes can be allowed to be rectified - It is perceptible that there is manual error in typing the figure and alphabet “D8” in place of “ZZ” at the end of “21AACCR5652Al”. No sooner was it detected, the petitioner in order to rectify the mistake, approached the GST authority by way of representation vide Letter dated 23.06.2025 addressed to the concerned GST authority enclosed therewith the relevant and related documents, like invoices for allowing it opportunity to rectify. It does manifest that the Department has accepted the deposit, but under a wrong account. The petitioner has explained that when the payment with respect to supplies made to RVNL is stopped for non-deposit of amount of tax for earlier transactions, it could come to its knowledge that error crept in while typing out the GST registration number of opposite party no.2; but none has set up objection as to deposit made in the account of RVNL. The Assistant Commissioner (Law) should have been more considerate in advising the concerned authority, rather than cut sorry figure on the plea of lapse of period. From the documents enclosed to the writ petition it transpires that the fact in the statement of the petitioner and the explanation offered by the petitioner is well-founded. The human error in reflecting correct GSTIN the deposit of tax has been credited to “21AACCR5652AlD8” (relating to TDS) instead of “21AACCR5652AlZZ” (regular). However, both the GSTIN belong to the same recipient, namely Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. There is no allegation that the petitioner has passed on the tax burden twice. Therefore, there appears no impediment for the opposite parties-authorities to take a pragmatic approach to mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner, particularly when the facts are not disputed and there is no objection as to receipt of amount of tax. Denying the rectification would tantamount to double taxation in the hands of the petitioner. No plea is also raised and possibly could not be raised by the opposite parties with respect to “unjust enrichment” as exposited from Mafatlal Industries Ltd. It is apt to direct the opposite parties-Goods and Services Tax Authorities to take effective steps within a period of eight weeks from date by permitting the petitioner to amend/rectify the return for the tax periods in question relating to Financial Year 2023-24 and dispose of the representation dated 25.06.2025 accordingly. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a bona fide clerical or arithmetical error in GST returns - specifically, inadvertent transposition/swapping of characters in a recipient's GSTIN causing tax to be deposited under the recipient's TDS-GST account instead of its regular GST account - is rectifiable under the GST statutory scheme despite lapse of ordinary timelines for amendment. 2. Whether a return filed by self-assessment and the data contained therein constitute 'record' or 'assessment' such that an error apparent on the face of the record may be corrected under provisions allowing rectification of apparent errors (Section 161 CGST / corresponding State provision) or by analogous principles applied in other statutes and decisions. 3. Whether refusal by revenue authorities to permit rectification on the ground of lapsed timelines, when there is no loss of revenue and both GSTINs belong to the same recipient, would result in impermissible double taxation and offend constitutional or statutory principles (including Article 265 and the concept of no double liability where tax is already paid). 4. What is the appropriate remedy/direction where facts are undisputed, the error is clerical/apparent, and revenue is not prejudiced - i.e., whether mandamus to direct rectification and amendment of returns is warranted and within judicial competence. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Rectifiability of bona fide clerical error in GST returns despite lapse of timelines Legal framework: Section 161 CGST (rectification of errors apparent on the face of record) and pari materia State provisions; statutory regime of returns under Chapter IX (self-assessment) of CGST/OGST Acts; ancillary provisions governing timelines for amendment/rectification in GSTR filings. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on a series of high-court decisions (including Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Jharkhand benches) permitting rectification of inadvertent errors where there is no revenue loss; cited the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Aberdare (and its affirmance by the Supreme Court in the special leave dismissal) emphasizing purposive construction of return provisions to allow bona fide corrections. Decisions on Section 152 CPC and related Supreme Court authorities (e.g., Niyamat Ali Molla, Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan, Darshan Singh) were invoked to illuminate scope of correcting accidental slips or omissions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the GST regime is electronic and inadvertent, bona fide human errors in returns are foreseeable. Section 161's concept of 'error apparent on the face of record' must be read purposively, and clerical/arithmetic errors arising from accidental slips or omissions fall within its ambit (with provisos permitting correction of purely clerical errors beyond the six-month bar). Because returns are self-assessed and form part of the 'assessment'/'record', a transposition of characters in a GSTIN which is manifest on the documents supplied and undisputed constitutes an apparent clerical mistake amenable to rectification. The Court adopted the approach that timelines should not be permitted to produce absurd results where there is no loss to revenue and where denial would cause double taxation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - clerical or arithmetical mistakes in self-assessed GST returns that are apparent on the face of the record may be rectified under the GST scheme (and Section 161 principles) even where ordinary timelines have lapsed, provided there is bona fides and no revenue loss. Obiter - detailed comparisons to Section 152 CPC jurisprudence and extended doctrinal discussion of older authorities were applied by analogy to support the ratio. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the petitioner's inadvertent swapping of last two characters in the recipient's GSTIN is a clerical/arithmetic error apparent on the face of record and is rectifiable; the Department's blanket reliance on expired timelines cannot defeat rectification where there is no loss of revenue and the error is manifest. Issue 2 - Whether returns and self-assessment constitute 'record' for purposes of rectification Legal framework: Definitions of 'assessment' (Section 2(11)) and statutory scheme for returns (Chapter-IX) under CGST/OGST Acts; Section 161 CGST; jurisprudence on meaning of 'record' in tax and assessment contexts. Precedent treatment: The Court referred to authorities (State of Madras v. Louis Dreyfus; CST v. Motwane; Upasana Hospital; Maharana Mills and M.K. Venkatachalam) recognizing that 'record' may include the entire assessment file, books, invoices and related materials, and that mistakes apparent from the record may be corrected by reference to the full evidence available. Interpretation and reasoning: Because returns are self-assessed and returns' particulars flow into the assessment record, the Court treated the return and its supporting invoices/documents as part of the 'record' for the purpose of identifying errors apparent on the face of record. A manifest typographical error in the GSTIN, corroborated by invoices and deposit entries, can therefore be rectified without invasive reappraisal of disputed facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - returns and associated filing records constitute 'record' such that an error apparent therefrom can be rectified under Section 161 and analogous principles. Obiter - extended doctrinal exposition of 'record' across tax jurisprudence. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the error in the self-assessed returns was apparent from the record (invoices and deposit evidence) and amenable to rectification by the authorities under the rectification provisions. Issue 3 - Denial of rectification causing double taxation and constitutional/statutory concerns Legal framework: Article 265 constitutional mandate that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law; principles against double taxation and unjust enrichment; Mafatlal Industries principle on passing on of indirect tax burden. Precedent treatment: Reliance upon Mafatlal Industries (nine-Judge Bench) for the proposition that tax collected without authority of law cannot be enforced and for the contextual test of whether burden was passed on; reliance on recent GST jurisprudence (Aberdare and Star Engineers) emphasizing no loss of revenue and fairness to assessee when permitting rectification. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that where the same recipient has two GSTINs (TDS and regular) and deposited tax is accepted under one of them due to a typing error, refusing rectification would expose the supplier to being taxed twice for the same transaction (first by having deposited tax under wrong account and second by the recipient withholding/appropriating additional tax against the regular account). Where revenue is not prejudiced and there is no allegation of unjust enrichment, refusing rectification on mere technicality would be contrary to the objectives of the GST scheme and risk violating principles underlying Article 265. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - denial of rectification in such manifest, revenue-neutral cases would produce unreasonable double taxation and should be avoided; Obiter - policy considerations about electronic GST regime learning curve and software configurability. Conclusion: The Court held that denying rectification in the present facts would tantamount to double taxation and was unjustifiable; the authorities should adopt a pragmatic approach where no revenue loss is shown. Issue 4 - Appropriate remedy and scope of judicial intervention Legal framework: Writ jurisdiction under constitutional provisions to issue mandamus; scope of judicial directions to administrative authorities to exercise statutory powers lawfully and pragmatically; limits on judicial rewriting of statutes or substituting timelines absent statutory mandate. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on precedents that allow judicial direction where statutory powers to rectify exist but are not exercised (and where facts are undisputed and amenable to summary correction), including the reasoning in High Court and Supreme Court decisions favouring rectification in revenue-neutral, inadvertent error cases. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the undisputed nature of facts, admission by revenue that deposit was made (albeit to wrong GSTIN), absence of loss to the exchequer and absence of allegations of mala fides or unjust enrichment, the Court found it appropriate to direct the GST authorities to permit rectification and to dispose of the pending representation within a specified time (eight weeks), rather than leave the aggrieved taxpayer to futile procedural loops. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where statutory rectification headroom exists and facts are undisputed, the Court may direct administrative authorities to permit amendment/rectification and decide representations within reasonable time; Obiter - observations on departmental mindsets and software configurability. Conclusion: The Court directed the GST authorities to take effective steps within eight weeks to permit amendment/rectification of the returns for the relevant tax periods and to dispose of the representation, while leaving no order as to costs. Cross-references and Final Synthesis 1. Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked: the characterization of returns as part of the 'record' (Issue 2) underpins the availability of rectification for clerical errors (Issue 1). 2. Issue 3 provides the constitutional and equitable underpinning: where rectification avoids double taxation and does not prejudice revenue, statutory timelines or procedural niceties should not be allowed to defeat correction. 3. Issue 4 is the remedial corollary: judicial intervention in the form of direction to exercise statutory rectification powers is appropriate where errors are apparent, undisputed, and revenue neutrality is established.